SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (54253)10/23/2002 5:34:41 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
To use the word "they" in this context is not accurate. The groups are too disparate to be classified together. They pursue different aims and therefore strike at different perceived enemies.



To: Ilaine who wrote (54253)10/23/2002 5:36:46 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
There are generalizations, and then there are generalizations. The trouble with Russia and Chechnya is, I'm not entirely sure if it's possible to reduce Chechnya to a finer grade of rubble. Well, there's always nukes, I guess. Short of that, retaliatory measures are problematic.



To: Ilaine who wrote (54253)10/23/2002 6:08:55 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "First they pissed of the US. Then they pissed off the Aussies. Now they are pissing off the Russians. They just don't have an f-ing clue."

I don't see these things as being related, but as long as you do, would you now be willing to make a prediction that Russia will support a US invasion of Iraq? How about that Russia will allow a UN Security Council resolution allowing US to use force in Iraq?

-- Carl


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News